I've banned "R Marcucio" from leaving any further comments for the next month, because he/she/it has left literally hundred of comments on this article, wasting hours of my time, several days in a row. He/she/it is the reason there are many times more comments on this article than my other articles. I did not remove any of his/her/its comments, they are still visible. I simply cannot keep wasting time with someone who keeps making the same unsupported assertions over and over and over and over again.
Yet you and your colleagues besiege Dr. Nass like she’s the one profiting from the ‘vaccine mandates’. Do you believe in UFOs? I don’t, so if you do, good for you! Climate change, I don’t, so if you do, good for you. Do you want the government to quit killing people? I do. Are we on the same team?
First of all, there is no comparison between the comments left here by "R Marcucio" and my comments on the gaslighter Meryl's new year's eve article - which was largely about ME, btw, so obviously I have a right to respond.
And on twitter I have barely interacted with her, and then only b/c she tweeted an inane and insulting comment about no-virus people (which, again, includes me so I obviously it's perfectly reasonable for myself and other no-virus people to respond).
Feel free to show evidence to the contrary. Show where I've "besieged" poor Meryl - or said that she is profiting from quackcine mandates. I haven't (although she may be profiting for all I know).
When "poor Meryl" makes illogical and insulting public statements about no-virus, it's only natural and reasonable that she will get responses from no-virus people. If she doesn't want the feedback she can simply refrain from insulting people or putting out foolish illogical commentary.
And the fact is that her defence/promotion of the weaponized pseudoscience of virology helps to prolong the agony and prolong the profit-making of that industry. Once people realize that "viruses" were never shown to exist they are not going to be receptive to the related jabs.
You remind me of the MSM. When asked a question, you answer a question you wished you'd been asked, ignoring the other party altogether. But it works for you.
So I will assert that you do want the government to continue killing people. Otherwise why attack someone who is fighting to save people?
You also remind me of the gaslighter, in that all you're doing is whining about/accusing people instead of citing valid studies to show that I'm wrong.
I didn't attempt to answer any question, I simply responded to your ridiculous comments.
Your question doesn't even merit a response and the answer should be obvious.
You remind me of the gaslighter Meryl. I can't imagine either of you are so stupid that you can't see that exposing the fraud of virology will help save lives and that defending it works to the benefit of the perps... as I already stated to you:
"And the fact is that her defence/promotion of the weaponized pseudoscience of virology helps to prolong the agony and prolong the profit-making of that industry. Once people realize that "viruses" were never shown to exist they are not going to be receptive to the related jabs."
"Your question doesn't even merit a response and the answer should be obvious."
Well it's fucking not to me. You are attacking the single most prolific combatant of the evil cabal I have witnessed in action for over 5 years, Dr. Meryl Nass.
You aligning against her is by definition putting yourself on the wrong side of history!
Christine, you and Mike Stone have done excellent work debating and honestly and completely shared every interaction with the scientists defending the existence if viruses, which cannot be said of the other side.
Just discovered that my comment on a Steve K(H)irsch stack article [Jul 26, 2022] was scrubbed so put it there again. hahaha What does K(H)irsch have to worry about if viruses *really exist", huh? Virus defenders are all lily-livered cowards as they say out west. Even docs like Dr Mercola.
Here's the comment that got deleted there (& that I just reposted there) for posterity.
Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 6:37 AM - my comment here was liked by one of Steve's subscribers. Gone now?
So repetez s'il vous plait > Stefan Lanka, Ph.D. is a German micro-biologist and former virologist. Since the early 1990s he has been at the forefront speaking out about the pseudoscientific methods used to prove the existence of so-called viruses and challenging the medical theory stating that viruses are the cause of infectious diseases.
Dr. Stefan Lanka's 2020 Article Busts the Virus Misconception:- April 20, 2021 - The virus misconception is at the heart of Operation Coronavirus, because without the concept of germ theory and without the horror story of the killer virus, most people would not buy the NWO-directed official narrative of COVID propaganda.
In a previous article on the nature of the virus, I have discussed the heroic efforts of German virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka, who won a landmark case in 2017 which went all the way to the German Supreme Court. Lanka proved in the highest court of the land that measles was not caused by a virus, and that there was in fact no such thing as a measles virus.
Lanka is still busy working, and he wrote this article earlier this year (translated into English here) entitled ““The Misconception called Virus”” in which he explains the history of how mainstream science went horribly wrong with its conclusions (really assumptions) to demonize the humble virus and to falsely ascribe pathogenicity to it when there is none.
The Virus Misconception: The Killer Virus Story vs. Deficiency and Toxicity Lanka’s main point throughout the article is this: when modern scientists are working with diseased tissue, they think the presence of a virus is causing the disease, instead of realizing that the tissue in question has been cut off and isolated from its host, then doused with antibiotics, and that this separation and poison make it diseased and kill it, rather than any virus. Lanka writes: “All claims about viruses as pathogens are wrong and are based on easily recognizable, understandable and verifiable misinterpretations …
All scientists who think they are working with viruses in laboratories are actually working with typical particles of specific dying tissues or cells which were prepared in a special way. They believe that those tissues and cells are dying because they were infected by a virus. In reality, the infected cells and tissues were dying because they were starved and poisoned as a consequence of the experiments in the lab.”
Further: ” … the death of the tissue and cells takes place in the exact same manner when no “infected” genetic material is added at all. The virologists have apparently not noticed this fact. According to … scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out. In order to confirm the newly discovered method of so-called “virus propagation” … scientists would have had to perform additional experiments, called negative control experiments, in which they would add sterile substances … to the cell culture.”
“These control experiments > have never been carried out by the official “science” to this day <. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions in the exact same way as when they come into contact with alleged “infected” material.”
I added this >
Also, please see Christine Massey's excellent FOI research that also proves these facts - that viruses do not exist as no one can provide laboratory proof of them & COVID was simply a world-wide BS psyop.
Massey has a substack as well as a website (& is best friends with Steve K(H)irsch!) so check her out. :-)
Hope you got a BIG laugh out of that last sentence, Christine & you get mucho more subscriptions.
fyi > Dr Stefan Lanka: The Misconception Called Virus (2020) - Archive
The Misconception called Virus . Measles as an example . Dr Stefan Lanka . Contrary to what most people believe, there are no pathogenic viruses. The claims about the existence of viruses and viral diseases are based on historic misinterpretations and not as I thought in the past - on fraud or deliberate deception.
Here's that brilliant Dr Mark Bailey no-virus smack-down of Dr Kevin McCairn - Enjoy!! Loved the comment down-thread that Christine deserves a Mark Bailey Award for Calm Debate (paraphrased) re: debating the several pro-virus lunk-heads here wallowing in their stupidity & complete obliviousness.
Perhaps the most important "isolation" to show that viruses both exist as a discrete and separate non host related entity and that they are contagious would be to capture them from the air/atmosphere. To be transmissible there most be an airborne nature to these alleged pathogens.
viruses are labile. they do not survive long in air. Measles can be caught for a few hours after an infected person was in a room. This is very well established.
There are papers on infectivity that challenge this notion so it only appears to be well established in policy and accepted consensus understanding and not hard science.
How do you want this proof presented to you? Be honest. What would be acceptable among the realms of possibility (for example a virus cannot exactly come to your house for tea and biscuits and introduce itself, it is allegedly a micro-organism that is much much smaller than the average bacterium, which presumably you accept exists?) ?
Is that a joke? What an absurd, illogical comment.
And this has been answered over and over again, including when I spoke to Dan and the steps were outlined in my article. Review page 1 of this document, if you need a review of the logical, valid scientific steps: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
If you deny their existence then maybe the problem is that no matter what evidence is presented to you...you won't believe it and will invent more illogical and unreasonable hurdles to jump over in order to feel that you are in the right.
For me, I am open minded. So far in this discussion, I am sad to say, the more rational information has been coming from R. That's not my fault so don't get angry with me.
Oh wow, so you contend that putting a clinical sample in a cell line (likely with cow serum and toxic drugs as well, but not disclosed, since these are virtually always used), with no valid independent variable, and using clinical samples from other patients also with pneumonia as the "control", proves something about a specific alleged tiny particle (for which a "genome" was invented and no protein analysis whatsoever was conducted)?
You are asking me that? This is staggering. You are claiming there is no such thing as a virus. The issue is being claimed by certain scientists that "pathogenic viruses" (as opposed to bacteriophages that Dr Stefan Lanka does not dispute as he has observed the isolation of them) may not exist or at least have not been formally isolated, the reasoning being that other artefacts which are elements of cell breakdown are what viruses are claimed to be, in other words a case of mistaken identity. So this being the case what distinguishes exogenic (what the virus might fall into the category of as not being a subcellular unit) from endogenic (exosomes for example) components?
Ok, exogenic elements come from outside the organism, hence a test which reveals units that can pass from one person to another (a pathogen, a transmitter of disease) is more likely to offer evidence of the claimed virus. No?
You don't seem to see that this was not an attack against your theory.
You wrote "Perhaps the most important "isolation" to show that viruses both exist as a discrete and separate non host related entity and that they are contagious would be to capture them from the air/atmosphere. To be transmissible there most be an airborne nature to these alleged pathogens."
Simply finding little things in the air would do nothing towards showing them to infect hosts, cause disease or that the disease is transmissible. These alleged things need to be found in their alleged hosts, where they should be plentiful. So far they haven't even shown that these alleged particles exist, they have to manufacture "genomes" and insist that certain proteins came from the tiny particles that they point at, with zero proof. Step 1 is find them in the alleged hosts and go from there, but they don't even get that far.
A from Marcucio: I do not know for sure because I am not able to directly observe all vital occurring processes but I can give you a fairy tale about it.
Prove you exist! This is ridiculous no one, not Stefan Lanka or Kery Mullis is disputing the existence of Ribosomes. How can anyone have a reasonable discussion if you keep throwing the baby out with the bathwater like that?
https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/89BRage.html "According to Hillman, the electron microscopist is looking at an unnatural "mask", usually composed of osmic acid. He argues that some of the things seen through the electron microscope could not really exist in living cells. In other words, they are artefacts of the process for preparing cells for the electron microscope. Among the structures which Hillman says do not exist in life include the endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi body, ribosomes and synaptic vesicles (and lots of other complicated sounding objects)."
"Hillman is not out to tear down biology. What he would really like is for biologists to do the control experiments necessary to determine the effect of their methods of preparation."
ribosomes have been studied for 70 years. it is ridiculous to question their existence given how much we know about them, their structure, how they are encoded in the genome and what they do.
Ok, then there should be evidence of control experiments to compare and contrast with "infected" cultures? Are you aware of such control experiments and what they reveal? You must be in order to be able to claim what you claim.
The greatest concern that I have with so many images of "viruses" is that on many occasions they appear as a process similar to phagocytosis. The cell membrane of the tissue in question has become the cell wall of the element that you say is a virus. Yet this exact same process occurs for other structures (exosomes is one).
Thus an exogenous discrete element is not convincing. Heck you can see the process in its intermediate stages in some electron micrographs..
Then this issue of how these viruses are seen externally but they only have a limited lifespan. But again if this material is a product of coughing and sneezing it simply cannot prove on its own that this is a non endogenous product of cell breakdown. It can all be explained as extracellular products.
So then the issue is the sequencing and the claim that the virus has a sequence that is not of the human genome. But with all due respect a virus often only contains one DNA element and none have more than a few fragments of RNA ...
So in what way is it being argued that the virus as compared to the exosome has such a different genetic structure as to make it impossible to be an endogenous entity and thus that it must be an alien entity?
I am sure that the crux of the matter lies here and why some scientists (that you appear to deny as having valid credentials or arguments) say is why the issue of pathogenic viruses are in question.
They never purify the particles that they point to and call "viruses", and then extract the genetic material directly from them. In every paper I've ever looked at, they worked with a soup of genetic material from mixed sources.
I think this man has been banned? I wanted him to see those responses.
I would love to know how these scientists have determined the human genome in exosomes but not in the similar particles that they call viruses? I find it hard to believe that there is such a notable difference or an issue than cannot be explained by occams razor, namely that there is no exogenous elements. Or there is toxic material in the soup (although this chap says its not toxic ..ok).
Yes, see my pinned comment. He left literally hundreds of comments and was eating up way too much of my time, making the same assertions over and over again.
And I had also written but it was editted somehow in sending that ..the issue then is this claim that viruses have a very different genetic sequence to exosomes and other extracellular products.
Yet viruses only contain one DNA strand at most and they are usually a relatively small number of RNA sequences. Fragments if RNA might on occasions look alien to the human genome, but is that not the case that other extracellular products have RNA sequences that might appear alien if we chose to see it that way?
This is perhaps the crux of it all. Some scientists, credentialed and experienced, are claiming these things that you say are exogenous, are on fact endogenous. Are you not curious?
There is little to no discussion of the effects found in the non infected samples. I guess for some this would be conclusive of the proof of viruses. It is interesting I admit, but it appears to mention control in passing. No discussion of what steps were taken with the contol cultures and how they differed, except to suggest that only 3 of 4 cultures showed evidence of virus. OK. You are happy with that? Have I missed something?
What is of great concern to me is the electron micrographs of "viruses" and how similar electronmicrographs of exosomes, look identical in terms of size and shape and appearance. In what way is a distinction being made in your view? How can anyone be so sure?
They don't even specific how many of their lab dishes had CPE, or if any of the "control" dishes did. Virology is always sketchy. And no matter what effects, they cannot be attributed to specific particles because no specific particles were used as the independent variable. Especially particles that were never shown to exist, let alone be in the patient samples. It's ridiculous! This guy is just here to waste time, he has left literally hundreds of inane comments.
there were no cytopathic effects in the controls. the media is not toxic to cells. the cells were grown for a month under the same conditions prior to the inoculation....
the particles were observed in the supernatant. sequencing detected the presence of a coronavirus.
Prove that there were no cytopathic effects in the controls. The authors don't state this. Prove me wrong with a quote from the paper.
Your declarations aren't science.
The authors didn't even mention the antibiotics, antifungals and cow serum used to feed the cells. You don't know what they used or how much, or whether they even gave the same amounts to the fake-"controls".
Any any idiot can see that there is zero way to attribute causation to specific particles when specific particles were not the independent variable. Are you stupid, or a shill? This was all explained already, over and over. There would be any number of differences between the experimental and "control" dishes.
There is no "sequencing", there is assembling of sequences of unknown provenance, big difference.
You are clearly here to waste time. How disgraceful.
there was no effect on the control cells. they were normal. the cells had been grown for a month prior to inoculation. there was no change in the controls. within a few days the infected cells had disrupted cilia and cyotopathic effects--this took longer on other cell types indicating it was not general 'toxicity'.
the virus was recovered from the media and the whole genome was sequenced. the particles contained the genes that comprise coronaviruses. these genes are not found in any of the cells that are used. they are not in the human genome. Exosomes are comprised of proteins and RNAs that are derived from the human genome. these may resemble exosomes, but they are not exosomes-they are coronaviruses.
It concerns me that you use terms such as "the virus was recovered from the media" as if a discrete and separate entity did not exist. Yes I am aware of the claim of the the differences in exosomes and viruses relating to the human genome and viruses not respectively. Yet it comes across as sleight of hand (not accusing you here) when there are extracellular units and exosomes that also look "exactly" like corona viruses. How can that be? So one unit that is the same size and structure is toxic and the other is not because of a difference in the RNA sequence. Hmmmm. Ok so if you are happy with that, good for you. Thanks anyway for trying to help.
the virus WAS recovered from the media. that is literally what the data inm teh paper show. so using "the virus was recovered from the media" is correct.
exosomes do not contain viral genomes...one is toxic because it infects cells and kills them. exosomes don't do that. exosomes modulate inflammation and signal to adjacent cells--they are not toxic.
Prove that all those addons do not negatively affect structured tissue by blocking nutrients or disintegrating the tissue from inside (after being absorbed) and outside of it.
no one needs to know exactly how it ASSEMBLES millions of sequences of unknown provenance from a monkey/cow/human/bacteria/fungi mess into a fraudulent in silico "virus genome".
It's Dan who said that the sequences are physically assembled, so if you disagree go talk to him.
And nope, no one can know that the provenance of a sequence is "a virus" unless "a virus" has been shown to exist and the sequence was taken specifically from "the virus" or whatever particle is in question. No one has ever done those steps. All you have are ass-umptions. Logic 101.
the genomes are physically sequenced. the sequences are assembled into contiguous sequences based on overlapping fragments. They are not made up.
There is this thing called 'evolution'. have you heard of this? Viruses have relationships to each other. THAT is how a sequence can identify what type of virus/fungus/cow/monkey DNA is present in the sequencing reaction.
Not a single study of the thousands you refer to has proven isolation or existence of “virus” per the definition offered by “virologists.”
Metagenomics is quite interesting, but certainly fails to prove the hypothesis that “viruses” exist, as defined. Too bad metagenomics doesn’t require a course in logic and critical thinking as a prerequisite to becoming an “expert” in the field.
No, we’re the individuals who, unlike the sheep, refuse to “trust the science” and “trust the experts” until we have actually read the science. Everyone here is aware of metagenomics. You have shared nothing we haven’t seen and nothing we don’t understand. Keep looking and do share when you find science backing your faith in “virus”
you are obviously here just to waste people's time because you've posted countless comments but zero science showing a virus; waste of time discussing "virus genomes" when you can't even find a virus.
I am pointing out that yiur blog is scientific nonsense.
The papers posted show the virus exists and have been isolated.
I have posted several papers that explain metagenomics. A tooic you are unaware of.
The virus has been isolated from patients, shown to cause cytotoxic effects in vitro, pathology in animals, can be blocked by specific antibodies against sars-cov-2. This is all published snd available on pubmed
'In my view, zillions of “reads” of unknown provenance fed into a software assembly pipeline with a reference “genome” is a far cry from an intact “SARS-COV-2” genome, let alone an intact “SARS-COV-2” genome surrounded by the alleged “SARS-COV-2” spikey protein shell.'
Your view is WRONG. metagenomics is a robust and unbiased method of discovery. that is wha tis used along with viral isolation in cell culture using multiple cell lines. the science is robust.
First of all there is no proof that there is any virus organism in the "virus sample" ; it's always declared without 100% proof.
Cytopathic effect after putting the sample into a healthy cell culture does not prove there is a virus organism in the new cell culture.
Virologist want us to believe that Cytopathic Effect and a release of nanoparticles is proof of a virus hijacking a cell which is ludicrous because the process of endocytosis and exocytosis produces the same result and so does programmed cell death aka apoptosis.
These processes can be regulated many ways for many reasons, however virologists have never 100% proved that cytopathic effect is caused by a virus organism because they don't do proper controls and their experiment protocols are pseudoscientific.
Your mock infection experiments you point to are not valid because they don't use samples from healthy people or even people who are supposedly sick from other things to see if the same cytopathic breakdown process happens and the same artificial insilico virus organism genomes can be generated.
When the virologists start generating the sequences there are millions of possible molecules and genomes that they generate..
So according to your logic each one of these hypothetical computer generated molecules is inside the sample.. so that means any one of them could have gotten the person sick with your process of isolation and purification of virus.
The final genomes are always agreed on based on consensus agreements and not real evidence.
They pick and choose which molecules they want to blame on the sickness they pick and choose which genomes they want to label as the "official" genome there is 0 proof and 0 evidence that the genomes were actually whole and intact at any point inside any human, samples or cell cultures and that the agreed upon in silico hypothetical molecule virus organism genome made the person sick.
Even if the molecule was there, what if the molecule was actually making the person healthier or healing from toxic absorptions by causing so-called viral symptoms like coughing, sneezing or healing from cell degeneration or a warning sign to change their environment as in they are being poisoned.
The molecules could be natural byproducts of normal healthy human body functions and not due to some organism invader.
There is no evidence that these novel computer generated genomes are real or cause sickness.
You would have to be a complete idiot to follow the steps of virology regarding isolation and purification and believe that it actually means isolation and purification.
There is no article showing a lab scientist putting purified virus particles next to healthy human lung tissue and that lung tissue starts getting hijacked and produces millions more virus organisms.
There is no evidence of this..
In silico genomes created by computer algorithms do not prove the molecules are real virus killer organisms inside a body or a cell culture or that they are the cause of sickness.
When pointing at the random particles in the electron microscopy images, it is absolutely a retarded assumption to declare those particles are actually real virus spheres causing a person to get a specific disease.
There are computer generated images of human virus organisms but not real images.
There are particles being pointed to and declared as whole virus spheres but these images are not realistic. They are not showing actual virus organisms and the characteristics of them change always because they are most likely polymorphic cell debris after apoptosis or exocytosis.
To determine that the images are virus organisms that cause sickness you would need to gather these particles up together separately as in "isolate" them and then prove they are virus organisms by getting them to invade healthy human cells and also to make a human get a specific disease.
These experiments have never been done because they can't be done because the virus organisms can't be isolated in this way because they don't exist.
The fact you said "Hypothesis Testing" dictates the controls used means that you are satisfied with the lack of proper controls because in your mind those "virus" samples actually contain the exact virus organism that they are claimed to contain..
You are going on faith and not actually proving the virus is there to begin with Which is simply bad science.
So this tells me you know exactly how virologists FAKE their expenantes to make people believe that the virus organism causes "cytopathic effect".
The way you say "cytopathic breakdown effects can only be caused by viruses" tells me you must be really indoctrinated or simply retarded to what can actually and does cause cytopathic effects on cells.
Cytokines can cause cytopathic reactions, they are not virus organisms. They are just proteins that are made to tear apart and break down cell tissues.
This is why when you have cell breakdown you find RNA cytokines which are not viruses and will always be present during cytopathic reactions.
Germ Theory of Disease is not science and virology based on this idiotic germ theory is even more idiotic.
There are no highly contagious deadly mutating pathogenic virus organisms chasing after and waiting to jump inside humans from other animals just to hijack cells and grow and reproduce itself in order to kill the human body.
There is no battle with germs or virus organisms 😂😂 if you believe your body is in battle with germs you are likely suffering from germophobia and have a mental disorder.
Understanding that virologists don't actually do real science is not being illiterate. Virologists are performing nonsense, not science.
Virologists have basically hijacked biology and molecular biology techniques and just created a new nonsense pseudoscience that has been used to transfer the cause of disease from environmental toxins mostly man made on to "Natural Invisible Bugs" which we all know are actually just Fakebelieve.
I've discussed that over and over again, and you would know the answer if you had watched the video above. "Virus genomes" are assembled, never found intact and never shown to come from a virus. You are here to waste time. I'm not answering any more questions, I will simply refer you to the 1st page of this document:
HPV does not cause cytotoxicity, HPV and its DNA cause cell transformation. Here is a review of the experimental literature with citations than you and others can read.
A2 strain of RSV isolated from a sick patient used to infect mice intranasally after plaque purification under agarose. RSV grew in the lungs of mice and caused histopathology in the lung.
RSV. infects only certain cells in the culture. it is not 'toxic' material being delivered. cytopathic effects were not observed. the virus causes formation of syncytia...just like in vivo. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3323997/
Cell breakdown is precisely what's passed off as isolation. CDC, Harcourt et al:
We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics (GIBCO, https://www.thermofisher.com). We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL. We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols (9,10).
When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.
Monkey cells, human cells and other cells are used to grow the viruses. Calf serum is required for vcekl culture. There are no toxic chemicals in culture media
No, they are used to obtain cytopathic effects so that an imaginary virus can be blamed for them. Like hell there are no toxic chemicals. From the CDC's "isolation" paper by Harcourt et al. (typical):
We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics (GIBCO, https://www.thermofisher.com). We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL. We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols (9,10).
When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.
Not because I say so, because I am 100% correct. How much sequencing have you done? do you understand any of it? why not describe the methods used. Sanger, Nanopore, Illumina, and then offer an actual critique of the method instead of hand waving? oh, you can't.
please point to a "SARS-COV-2 genome" that wasn't assembled, and wasn't based on a soup of RNA from mixed sources? make sure you can prove that the RNA is from a replication-competent intracellular obligate parasite that transmits disease between hosts via natural modes of exposure.
please point to a "SARS-COV-2 genome" that wasn't assembled, and wasn't based on a soup of RNA from mixed sources? make sure you can prove that the RNA is from a replication-competent intracellular obligate parasite that transmits disease between hosts via natural modes of exposure. then we can compare it to the metagenomics version of the same "virus genome".
I've banned "R Marcucio" from leaving any further comments for the next month, because he/she/it has left literally hundred of comments on this article, wasting hours of my time, several days in a row. He/she/it is the reason there are many times more comments on this article than my other articles. I did not remove any of his/her/its comments, they are still visible. I simply cannot keep wasting time with someone who keeps making the same unsupported assertions over and over and over and over again.
Yet you and your colleagues besiege Dr. Nass like she’s the one profiting from the ‘vaccine mandates’. Do you believe in UFOs? I don’t, so if you do, good for you! Climate change, I don’t, so if you do, good for you. Do you want the government to quit killing people? I do. Are we on the same team?
"Besiege"??
First of all, there is no comparison between the comments left here by "R Marcucio" and my comments on the gaslighter Meryl's new year's eve article - which was largely about ME, btw, so obviously I have a right to respond.
And on twitter I have barely interacted with her, and then only b/c she tweeted an inane and insulting comment about no-virus people (which, again, includes me so I obviously it's perfectly reasonable for myself and other no-virus people to respond).
Feel free to show evidence to the contrary. Show where I've "besieged" poor Meryl - or said that she is profiting from quackcine mandates. I haven't (although she may be profiting for all I know).
When "poor Meryl" makes illogical and insulting public statements about no-virus, it's only natural and reasonable that she will get responses from no-virus people. If she doesn't want the feedback she can simply refrain from insulting people or putting out foolish illogical commentary.
And the fact is that her defence/promotion of the weaponized pseudoscience of virology helps to prolong the agony and prolong the profit-making of that industry. Once people realize that "viruses" were never shown to exist they are not going to be receptive to the related jabs.
You remind me of the MSM. When asked a question, you answer a question you wished you'd been asked, ignoring the other party altogether. But it works for you.
So I will assert that you do want the government to continue killing people. Otherwise why attack someone who is fighting to save people?
You also remind me of the gaslighter, in that all you're doing is whining about/accusing people instead of citing valid studies to show that I'm wrong.
I didn't attempt to answer any question, I simply responded to your ridiculous comments.
Your question doesn't even merit a response and the answer should be obvious.
You remind me of the gaslighter Meryl. I can't imagine either of you are so stupid that you can't see that exposing the fraud of virology will help save lives and that defending it works to the benefit of the perps... as I already stated to you:
"And the fact is that her defence/promotion of the weaponized pseudoscience of virology helps to prolong the agony and prolong the profit-making of that industry. Once people realize that "viruses" were never shown to exist they are not going to be receptive to the related jabs."
"Your question doesn't even merit a response and the answer should be obvious."
Well it's fucking not to me. You are attacking the single most prolific combatant of the evil cabal I have witnessed in action for over 5 years, Dr. Meryl Nass.
You aligning against her is by definition putting yourself on the wrong side of history!
lol sure
Only a month?! That's too much generosity, in my humble opinion.
Well we'll see what happens if he/she/it returns after a month and take it from there :)
Thank you Christine! Here is another MD with evidence THERE IS NO VIRUS!!!
https://drsambailey.substack.com/p/why-are-we-doing-this
Yes thanks, I know and adore Sam and her husband Mark, they are remarkable people!
Christine, you and Mike Stone have done excellent work debating and honestly and completely shared every interaction with the scientists defending the existence if viruses, which cannot be said of the other side.
Re: another version - Steve K(H) irsch and Me: A Love Story - thought this might be worth a big laugh.
(Below is my comment to a response to a post I put on Dr Sam Bailey's stack - got it? It's relevant, tho.)
https://drsambailey.substack.com/p/virology-for-developing-countriesand/comment/14777845
Lucinda 43 min ago ·edited 41 min ago
Just discovered that my comment on a Steve K(H)irsch stack article [Jul 26, 2022] was scrubbed so put it there again. hahaha What does K(H)irsch have to worry about if viruses *really exist", huh? Virus defenders are all lily-livered cowards as they say out west. Even docs like Dr Mercola.
Here's the comment that got deleted there (& that I just reposted there) for posterity.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/sam-baileys-very-disingenuous-settling/comment/14777720
Lucinda - 9 min ago
Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 6:37 AM - my comment here was liked by one of Steve's subscribers. Gone now?
So repetez s'il vous plait > Stefan Lanka, Ph.D. is a German micro-biologist and former virologist. Since the early 1990s he has been at the forefront speaking out about the pseudoscientific methods used to prove the existence of so-called viruses and challenging the medical theory stating that viruses are the cause of infectious diseases.
Dr. Stefan Lanka's 2020 Article Busts the Virus Misconception:- April 20, 2021 - The virus misconception is at the heart of Operation Coronavirus, because without the concept of germ theory and without the horror story of the killer virus, most people would not buy the NWO-directed official narrative of COVID propaganda.
In a previous article on the nature of the virus, I have discussed the heroic efforts of German virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka, who won a landmark case in 2017 which went all the way to the German Supreme Court. Lanka proved in the highest court of the land that measles was not caused by a virus, and that there was in fact no such thing as a measles virus.
Lanka is still busy working, and he wrote this article earlier this year (translated into English here) entitled ““The Misconception called Virus”” in which he explains the history of how mainstream science went horribly wrong with its conclusions (really assumptions) to demonize the humble virus and to falsely ascribe pathogenicity to it when there is none.
The Virus Misconception: The Killer Virus Story vs. Deficiency and Toxicity Lanka’s main point throughout the article is this: when modern scientists are working with diseased tissue, they think the presence of a virus is causing the disease, instead of realizing that the tissue in question has been cut off and isolated from its host, then doused with antibiotics, and that this separation and poison make it diseased and kill it, rather than any virus. Lanka writes: “All claims about viruses as pathogens are wrong and are based on easily recognizable, understandable and verifiable misinterpretations …
All scientists who think they are working with viruses in laboratories are actually working with typical particles of specific dying tissues or cells which were prepared in a special way. They believe that those tissues and cells are dying because they were infected by a virus. In reality, the infected cells and tissues were dying because they were starved and poisoned as a consequence of the experiments in the lab.”
Further: ” … the death of the tissue and cells takes place in the exact same manner when no “infected” genetic material is added at all. The virologists have apparently not noticed this fact. According to … scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out. In order to confirm the newly discovered method of so-called “virus propagation” … scientists would have had to perform additional experiments, called negative control experiments, in which they would add sterile substances … to the cell culture.”
“These control experiments > have never been carried out by the official “science” to this day <. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions in the exact same way as when they come into contact with alleged “infected” material.”
I added this >
Also, please see Christine Massey's excellent FOI research that also proves these facts - that viruses do not exist as no one can provide laboratory proof of them & COVID was simply a world-wide BS psyop.
Massey has a substack as well as a website (& is best friends with Steve K(H)irsch!) so check her out. :-)
Hope you got a BIG laugh out of that last sentence, Christine & you get mucho more subscriptions.
fyi > Dr Stefan Lanka: The Misconception Called Virus (2020) - Archive
https://ia903202.us.archive.org/4/items/dr-stefan-lanka-the-misconception-called-virus/Dr%20Stefan%20Lanka%20-%20The%20Misconception%20Called%20Virus%20%28Jan%202020%29_text.pdf
The Misconception called Virus . Measles as an example . Dr Stefan Lanka . Contrary to what most people believe, there are no pathogenic viruses. The claims about the existence of viruses and viral diseases are based on historic misinterpretations and not as I thought in the past - on fraud or deliberate deception.
Here's that brilliant Dr Mark Bailey no-virus smack-down of Dr Kevin McCairn - Enjoy!! Loved the comment down-thread that Christine deserves a Mark Bailey Award for Calm Debate (paraphrased) re: debating the several pro-virus lunk-heads here wallowing in their stupidity & complete obliviousness.
> First published on May 21st, 2022 - DOES SARS-CoV-2 EXIST? Virus Debate Between Dr Mark Bailey & Dr Kevin McCairn - Watch https://www.bitchute.com/video/b7IyQiecEEoe/
Published by Tim Truth - If you enjoyed hearing from our guests, please check their websites and video channels for more of their insights & research!
Dr. Mark Bailey & Dr. Sam Bailey:
https://drsambailey.com/
https://www.youtube.com/c/DrSamBailey
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/
https://www.subscribestar.com/drsambailey
https://t.me/drsambaileyofficial
Posted at the Drs Sam & Mark Bailey website & signed by many others subscribing to the statement >
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement - 14 July 2022
https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
Source document: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate
Dr Kevin McCairn:
https://www.mccairndojo.com/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCatl-kuOe2-VWcL8exCV73w
https://twitter.com/DrKevinWMcCair1
https://dlive.tv/Kevin_W_McCairn_PhD
https://wtyl.live/
Thanks Lucinda!
Perhaps the most important "isolation" to show that viruses both exist as a discrete and separate non host related entity and that they are contagious would be to capture them from the air/atmosphere. To be transmissible there most be an airborne nature to these alleged pathogens.
viruses isolated from surfaces...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3187074/
NO!!!!
https://maryann255.substack.com/p/the-truth-is-always-on-the-other-66c
viruses are labile. they do not survive long in air. Measles can be caught for a few hours after an infected person was in a room. This is very well established.
Where is this information/data please?
There are papers on infectivity that challenge this notion so it only appears to be well established in policy and accepted consensus understanding and not hard science.
https://drsambailey.substack.com/p/why-are-we-doing-this
No paper proving infectivity.
The Germ Theory is at the root of the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on humankind!
You still have not proven any alleged bio virus.
How do you want this proof presented to you? Be honest. What would be acceptable among the realms of possibility (for example a virus cannot exactly come to your house for tea and biscuits and introduce itself, it is allegedly a micro-organism that is much much smaller than the average bacterium, which presumably you accept exists?) ?
Is that a joke? What an absurd, illogical comment.
And this has been answered over and over again, including when I spoke to Dan and the steps were outlined in my article. Review page 1 of this document, if you need a review of the logical, valid scientific steps: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
"I asked you about proof of nucleotides and v-ses.
Do you claim their existence?
If yes, then tell me which way you are going to prove them?
By the scientific method or by direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes with them?
All steps and conclusions have to be logical."
You didn't ask me any such thing.
If you deny their existence then maybe the problem is that no matter what evidence is presented to you...you won't believe it and will invent more illogical and unreasonable hurdles to jump over in order to feel that you are in the right.
For me, I am open minded. So far in this discussion, I am sad to say, the more rational information has been coming from R. That's not my fault so don't get angry with me.
Oh wow, so you contend that putting a clinical sample in a cell line (likely with cow serum and toxic drugs as well, but not disclosed, since these are virtually always used), with no valid independent variable, and using clinical samples from other patients also with pneumonia as the "control", proves something about a specific alleged tiny particle (for which a "genome" was invented and no protein analysis whatsoever was conducted)?
I asked Marcucio.
The burden of proof is on those who make positive claims. Not on those who question or deny them.
Also point out where I committed any logical fallacy or cognitive bias.
And know this that my cognitive standards are logic, the scientific method and shared human experience through five senses.
If you know any better, then let me know.
Finding tiny things in the air is your idea of proving a replicating transmissible disease bomb? Logic please.
You are asking me that? This is staggering. You are claiming there is no such thing as a virus. The issue is being claimed by certain scientists that "pathogenic viruses" (as opposed to bacteriophages that Dr Stefan Lanka does not dispute as he has observed the isolation of them) may not exist or at least have not been formally isolated, the reasoning being that other artefacts which are elements of cell breakdown are what viruses are claimed to be, in other words a case of mistaken identity. So this being the case what distinguishes exogenic (what the virus might fall into the category of as not being a subcellular unit) from endogenic (exosomes for example) components?
Ok, exogenic elements come from outside the organism, hence a test which reveals units that can pass from one person to another (a pathogen, a transmitter of disease) is more likely to offer evidence of the claimed virus. No?
You don't seem to see that this was not an attack against your theory.
Please explain how finding tiny things in the air would prove that that thing cause a transmissible disease via natural modes of exposure?
You wrote "Perhaps the most important "isolation" to show that viruses both exist as a discrete and separate non host related entity and that they are contagious would be to capture them from the air/atmosphere. To be transmissible there most be an airborne nature to these alleged pathogens."
Simply finding little things in the air would do nothing towards showing them to infect hosts, cause disease or that the disease is transmissible. These alleged things need to be found in their alleged hosts, where they should be plentiful. So far they haven't even shown that these alleged particles exist, they have to manufacture "genomes" and insist that certain proteins came from the tiny particles that they point at, with zero proof. Step 1 is find them in the alleged hosts and go from there, but they don't even get that far.
Q: How do proteins get made
A: I don't know and I don't care.
Q to Marcucio: How do proteins get made?
A from Marcucio: I do not know for sure because I am not able to directly observe all vital occurring processes but I can give you a fairy tale about it.
they get made by ribosomes in cells as mRNA is translated.
Prove ribosomes.
Prove you exist! This is ridiculous no one, not Stefan Lanka or Kery Mullis is disputing the existence of Ribosomes. How can anyone have a reasonable discussion if you keep throwing the baby out with the bathwater like that?
https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/89BRage.html "According to Hillman, the electron microscopist is looking at an unnatural "mask", usually composed of osmic acid. He argues that some of the things seen through the electron microscope could not really exist in living cells. In other words, they are artefacts of the process for preparing cells for the electron microscope. Among the structures which Hillman says do not exist in life include the endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi body, ribosomes and synaptic vesicles (and lots of other complicated sounding objects)."
"Hillman is not out to tear down biology. What he would really like is for biologists to do the control experiments necessary to determine the effect of their methods of preparation."
"Prove you exist!"
Are you asking me about my positive claim or yours?
If mine, then cite it here first.
"This is ridiculous no one, not Stefan Lanka or Kery Mullis is disputing the existence of Ribosomes."
Logical fallacies you commit here: appeal to authority, genetic fallacy, bandwagon, appeal to ridicule.
"How can anyone have a reasonable discussion if you keep throwing the baby out with the bathwater like that?"
Am I? Do you deny me right to question or deny unsubstantiated claims?
Asking for proof is not unreasonable, quite the opposite.
ribosomes have been studied for 70 years. it is ridiculous to question their existence given how much we know about them, their structure, how they are encoded in the genome and what they do.
take a basic course in cell biology.
A course is not proof. It is like saying go to a priest to get proof of creator.
if you have not understanding of ribosomes you have no business critiquing this...
There are no toxic drugs in culture media or viral transfer media....
Ok, then there should be evidence of control experiments to compare and contrast with "infected" cultures? Are you aware of such control experiments and what they reveal? You must be in order to be able to claim what you claim.
If not then you are making an unsupported claim.
Read the first paper that was "discussed"....there is a control culture..
The greatest concern that I have with so many images of "viruses" is that on many occasions they appear as a process similar to phagocytosis. The cell membrane of the tissue in question has become the cell wall of the element that you say is a virus. Yet this exact same process occurs for other structures (exosomes is one).
Thus an exogenous discrete element is not convincing. Heck you can see the process in its intermediate stages in some electron micrographs..
Then this issue of how these viruses are seen externally but they only have a limited lifespan. But again if this material is a product of coughing and sneezing it simply cannot prove on its own that this is a non endogenous product of cell breakdown. It can all be explained as extracellular products.
So then the issue is the sequencing and the claim that the virus has a sequence that is not of the human genome. But with all due respect a virus often only contains one DNA element and none have more than a few fragments of RNA ...
So in what way is it being argued that the virus as compared to the exosome has such a different genetic structure as to make it impossible to be an endogenous entity and thus that it must be an alien entity?
I am sure that the crux of the matter lies here and why some scientists (that you appear to deny as having valid credentials or arguments) say is why the issue of pathogenic viruses are in question.
Yet you have no doubt.
Incuriosity is a sad fact of life today.
They never purify the particles that they point to and call "viruses", and then extract the genetic material directly from them. In every paper I've ever looked at, they worked with a soup of genetic material from mixed sources.
I think this man has been banned? I wanted him to see those responses.
I would love to know how these scientists have determined the human genome in exosomes but not in the similar particles that they call viruses? I find it hard to believe that there is such a notable difference or an issue than cannot be explained by occams razor, namely that there is no exogenous elements. Or there is toxic material in the soup (although this chap says its not toxic ..ok).
Yes, see my pinned comment. He left literally hundreds of comments and was eating up way too much of my time, making the same assertions over and over again.
And I had also written but it was editted somehow in sending that ..the issue then is this claim that viruses have a very different genetic sequence to exosomes and other extracellular products.
Yet viruses only contain one DNA strand at most and they are usually a relatively small number of RNA sequences. Fragments if RNA might on occasions look alien to the human genome, but is that not the case that other extracellular products have RNA sequences that might appear alien if we chose to see it that way?
This is perhaps the crux of it all. Some scientists, credentialed and experienced, are claiming these things that you say are exogenous, are on fact endogenous. Are you not curious?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2001017
You mean this paper?
There is little to no discussion of the effects found in the non infected samples. I guess for some this would be conclusive of the proof of viruses. It is interesting I admit, but it appears to mention control in passing. No discussion of what steps were taken with the contol cultures and how they differed, except to suggest that only 3 of 4 cultures showed evidence of virus. OK. You are happy with that? Have I missed something?
What is of great concern to me is the electron micrographs of "viruses" and how similar electronmicrographs of exosomes, look identical in terms of size and shape and appearance. In what way is a distinction being made in your view? How can anyone be so sure?
They don't even specific how many of their lab dishes had CPE, or if any of the "control" dishes did. Virology is always sketchy. And no matter what effects, they cannot be attributed to specific particles because no specific particles were used as the independent variable. Especially particles that were never shown to exist, let alone be in the patient samples. It's ridiculous! This guy is just here to waste time, he has left literally hundreds of inane comments.
there were no cytopathic effects in the controls. the media is not toxic to cells. the cells were grown for a month under the same conditions prior to the inoculation....
the particles were observed in the supernatant. sequencing detected the presence of a coronavirus.
the samples were FROM patients....
Prove that there were no cytopathic effects in the controls. The authors don't state this. Prove me wrong with a quote from the paper.
Your declarations aren't science.
The authors didn't even mention the antibiotics, antifungals and cow serum used to feed the cells. You don't know what they used or how much, or whether they even gave the same amounts to the fake-"controls".
Any any idiot can see that there is zero way to attribute causation to specific particles when specific particles were not the independent variable. Are you stupid, or a shill? This was all explained already, over and over. There would be any number of differences between the experimental and "control" dishes.
There is no "sequencing", there is assembling of sequences of unknown provenance, big difference.
You are clearly here to waste time. How disgraceful.
yes, that paper.
there was no effect on the control cells. they were normal. the cells had been grown for a month prior to inoculation. there was no change in the controls. within a few days the infected cells had disrupted cilia and cyotopathic effects--this took longer on other cell types indicating it was not general 'toxicity'.
the virus was recovered from the media and the whole genome was sequenced. the particles contained the genes that comprise coronaviruses. these genes are not found in any of the cells that are used. they are not in the human genome. Exosomes are comprised of proteins and RNAs that are derived from the human genome. these may resemble exosomes, but they are not exosomes-they are coronaviruses.
It concerns me that you use terms such as "the virus was recovered from the media" as if a discrete and separate entity did not exist. Yes I am aware of the claim of the the differences in exosomes and viruses relating to the human genome and viruses not respectively. Yet it comes across as sleight of hand (not accusing you here) when there are extracellular units and exosomes that also look "exactly" like corona viruses. How can that be? So one unit that is the same size and structure is toxic and the other is not because of a difference in the RNA sequence. Hmmmm. Ok so if you are happy with that, good for you. Thanks anyway for trying to help.
the virus WAS recovered from the media. that is literally what the data inm teh paper show. so using "the virus was recovered from the media" is correct.
exosomes do not contain viral genomes...one is toxic because it infects cells and kills them. exosomes don't do that. exosomes modulate inflammation and signal to adjacent cells--they are not toxic.
bye bye now, hundreds of comments later
culture media and viral transfer media are not toxic to cells.
bye bye now, hundreds of comments later
and still culture media and viral transfer media are not toxic to cells.
Prove that all those addons do not negatively affect structured tissue by blocking nutrients or disintegrating the tissue from inside (after being absorbed) and outside of it.
the cells grow in that media prior to the virus being added to the culture...
Q: You have to understand the methods before you can critique it5
A: I disagree, Dan.
Anyone knows that rabbit stew isn't made with frogs, turtles and hamsters.
I wonder if you're being paid by someone to leave hundreds of comments here and waste endless hours of my time. Life is too short, so goodbye, AGAIN.
anyone also should know that to critique something you should understand the methods....
bye bye now, hundreds of comments later
IF you do not understand the methods you are not in a position to offer an valid opinion.
you did this to Dan in the video too. instead of addressing his comments, you tried repeatedly to end the discussions...
hundreds of comments later... bye bye "R".
I understand them. That is why I say that they are not scientific.
The Human Genome has never been sequenced 'intact'
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj6987
yipee, maybe it's made from monkeys and cows too.
I wonder if you're being paid by someone to leave hundreds of comments here and waste endless hours of my time. Life is too short, so goodbye, AGAIN.
The reason why small fragments are used, is because you can't sequence large segments of DNA...so ALL sequencing is done this way.
bye bye now, hundreds of comments later
yes, because it is important to correct misinformation that appears on the internet.
You have no proof of nucleotides.
Q: Do you think it is important to know how next gen sequencing works.
A: Not particularly.
I will ignore you from here on out.
just like you ignore the methods....
bye bye now, hundreds of comments later
Repeat yourself much?
I wonder if you're being paid by someone to leave hundreds of comments here and waste endless hours of my time. Life is too short, so goodbye, AGAIN.
"Illuminati MiSeq platform". Still laughing at that. Great work Christine. These clowns just won't give up.
that was pretty stupid, indeed. it is illumina. can you explain how it works or no?
no one needs to know exactly how it ASSEMBLES millions of sequences of unknown provenance from a monkey/cow/human/bacteria/fungi mess into a fraudulent in silico "virus genome".
it does not physically assemble them Christine, and apparently you DO need to understand this to comment on it.
you use 'unknown provenance' like it is meaningful. it's not. the origin is quite clearly known.
It's Dan who said that the sequences are physically assembled, so if you disagree go talk to him.
And nope, no one can know that the provenance of a sequence is "a virus" unless "a virus" has been shown to exist and the sequence was taken specifically from "the virus" or whatever particle is in question. No one has ever done those steps. All you have are ass-umptions. Logic 101.
the genomes are physically sequenced. the sequences are assembled into contiguous sequences based on overlapping fragments. They are not made up.
There is this thing called 'evolution'. have you heard of this? Viruses have relationships to each other. THAT is how a sequence can identify what type of virus/fungus/cow/monkey DNA is present in the sequencing reaction.
Readings do not come from proven nucleotides. Thus it does not matter what you do with them as they do not prove anything.
"R", hundreds of inane comments on 1 article are more than enough. Please get a life so I can get on with mine. Bye.
I asked you about proof of nucleotides and v-ses.
Do you claim their existence?
If yes, then tell me which way you are going to prove them?
By the scientific method or by direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes with them?
All steps and conclusions have to be logical.
I guess you missed the fact that I struck out the "ti" on purpose.
it is dumb.
I asked you about proof of nucleotides and v-ses.
Do you claim their existence?
If yes, then tell me which way you are going to prove them?
By the scientific method or by direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes with them?
All steps and conclusions have to be logical.
I asked you about proof of nucleotides and v-ses.
Do you claim their existence?
If yes, then tell me which way you are going to prove them?
By the scientific method or by direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes with them?
All steps and conclusions have to be logical.
Thanks Lynn. It's almost like they rub it right in our faces :)
it is like you want to parade your ignorance
I asked you about proof of nucleotides and v-ses.
Do you claim their existence?
If yes, then tell me which way you are going to prove them?
By the scientific method or by direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes with them?
All steps and conclusions have to be logical.
Not a single study of the thousands you refer to has proven isolation or existence of “virus” per the definition offered by “virologists.”
Metagenomics is quite interesting, but certainly fails to prove the hypothesis that “viruses” exist, as defined. Too bad metagenomics doesn’t require a course in logic and critical thinking as a prerequisite to becoming an “expert” in the field.
Sorry, this was supposed to be a response to the following comment:
R Marcucio
i have posted multiple articles out of thousands that exist.
If you understood metagenomics you would not deny that viruses exist.
yes, the studies certainly show that viruses exist. that is my entire point. this is scientific illiteracy.
If they show that that alleged viruses exist, then explain it to us how step by step.
Are you going to do this by using the scientific method or by direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes with them?
If the former, then what natural phenomenon was observed first?
This is 100% off-topic, but super funny:
https://twitter.com/stephenchip/status/1642257463733788672
🤣
Viruspotting. We've been wrong all this time. This is what bioinformatics experts look like when sequencing stuff.
Unicornology
LOL
This blog is evidence of a serious lack of scientific literacy among people.
No, we’re the individuals who, unlike the sheep, refuse to “trust the science” and “trust the experts” until we have actually read the science. Everyone here is aware of metagenomics. You have shared nothing we haven’t seen and nothing we don’t understand. Keep looking and do share when you find science backing your faith in “virus”
i have posted multiple articles out of thousands that exist.
If you understood metagenomics you would not deny that viruses exist.
And none of them proves any virus or nucleotide.
you are obviously here just to waste people's time because you've posted countless comments but zero science showing a virus; waste of time discussing "virus genomes" when you can't even find a virus.
I am pointing out that yiur blog is scientific nonsense.
The papers posted show the virus exists and have been isolated.
I have posted several papers that explain metagenomics. A tooic you are unaware of.
The virus has been isolated from patients, shown to cause cytotoxic effects in vitro, pathology in animals, can be blocked by specific antibodies against sars-cov-2. This is all published snd available on pubmed
You haven't posted any papers showing a virus, only reviews of metagenomics b.s.
recombinant RSV expressing fluorescent proteins infected mouse lungs
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/2/201
recombinant means they were made in a lab
yes, a fluorescent protein was inserted into a natural virus.
explain how the fluorescent images were made after inserting the fluorescent protein into a virus.
because you clearly do not understand this topic.
Have a nice life, "R".
We know you do not understand science since 2020.
In other words you said viruses and nucleotides exist, and Happy April Fools’ Day.
We get your joke.
LOL
You have not proven any alleged bio virus or nucleotide.
Your comments are evidence of your pseudoscience.
"pseudo·science
[ˈsjuːdəʊˌsʌɪəns]
NOUN
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method:"
'In my view, zillions of “reads” of unknown provenance fed into a software assembly pipeline with a reference “genome” is a far cry from an intact “SARS-COV-2” genome, let alone an intact “SARS-COV-2” genome surrounded by the alleged “SARS-COV-2” spikey protein shell.'
Your view is WRONG. metagenomics is a robust and unbiased method of discovery. that is wha tis used along with viral isolation in cell culture using multiple cell lines. the science is robust.
The science used in virus cell cultures is fraud.
First of all there is no proof that there is any virus organism in the "virus sample" ; it's always declared without 100% proof.
Cytopathic effect after putting the sample into a healthy cell culture does not prove there is a virus organism in the new cell culture.
Virologist want us to believe that Cytopathic Effect and a release of nanoparticles is proof of a virus hijacking a cell which is ludicrous because the process of endocytosis and exocytosis produces the same result and so does programmed cell death aka apoptosis.
These processes can be regulated many ways for many reasons, however virologists have never 100% proved that cytopathic effect is caused by a virus organism because they don't do proper controls and their experiment protocols are pseudoscientific.
Your mock infection experiments you point to are not valid because they don't use samples from healthy people or even people who are supposedly sick from other things to see if the same cytopathic breakdown process happens and the same artificial insilico virus organism genomes can be generated.
When the virologists start generating the sequences there are millions of possible molecules and genomes that they generate..
So according to your logic each one of these hypothetical computer generated molecules is inside the sample.. so that means any one of them could have gotten the person sick with your process of isolation and purification of virus.
The final genomes are always agreed on based on consensus agreements and not real evidence.
They pick and choose which molecules they want to blame on the sickness they pick and choose which genomes they want to label as the "official" genome there is 0 proof and 0 evidence that the genomes were actually whole and intact at any point inside any human, samples or cell cultures and that the agreed upon in silico hypothetical molecule virus organism genome made the person sick.
Even if the molecule was there, what if the molecule was actually making the person healthier or healing from toxic absorptions by causing so-called viral symptoms like coughing, sneezing or healing from cell degeneration or a warning sign to change their environment as in they are being poisoned.
The molecules could be natural byproducts of normal healthy human body functions and not due to some organism invader.
There is no evidence that these novel computer generated genomes are real or cause sickness.
You would have to be a complete idiot to follow the steps of virology regarding isolation and purification and believe that it actually means isolation and purification.
There is no article showing a lab scientist putting purified virus particles next to healthy human lung tissue and that lung tissue starts getting hijacked and produces millions more virus organisms.
There is no evidence of this..
In silico genomes created by computer algorithms do not prove the molecules are real virus killer organisms inside a body or a cell culture or that they are the cause of sickness.
When pointing at the random particles in the electron microscopy images, it is absolutely a retarded assumption to declare those particles are actually real virus spheres causing a person to get a specific disease.
There are images of the virus...
healthy cell cultures do not exhibit 'cytopathic effect' that occurs when a virus is present.
endoctyosis and exocytosis do not produce 'cytopathic effects'
programmed cell death does not occur to a great extent when culturing these cells lines.
the cytopathic effect only occurs in the presence of virus.
hypothesis testing dictates the controls that will be used.
the sequences are not computer generated. they are physical sequences of the nucleic acids that are present in the sample being sequenced.
There are computer generated images of human virus organisms but not real images.
There are particles being pointed to and declared as whole virus spheres but these images are not realistic. They are not showing actual virus organisms and the characteristics of them change always because they are most likely polymorphic cell debris after apoptosis or exocytosis.
To determine that the images are virus organisms that cause sickness you would need to gather these particles up together separately as in "isolate" them and then prove they are virus organisms by getting them to invade healthy human cells and also to make a human get a specific disease.
These experiments have never been done because they can't be done because the virus organisms can't be isolated in this way because they don't exist.
The fact you said "Hypothesis Testing" dictates the controls used means that you are satisfied with the lack of proper controls because in your mind those "virus" samples actually contain the exact virus organism that they are claimed to contain..
You are going on faith and not actually proving the virus is there to begin with Which is simply bad science.
So this tells me you know exactly how virologists FAKE their expenantes to make people believe that the virus organism causes "cytopathic effect".
The way you say "cytopathic breakdown effects can only be caused by viruses" tells me you must be really indoctrinated or simply retarded to what can actually and does cause cytopathic effects on cells.
Cytokines can cause cytopathic reactions, they are not virus organisms. They are just proteins that are made to tear apart and break down cell tissues.
This is why when you have cell breakdown you find RNA cytokines which are not viruses and will always be present during cytopathic reactions.
That is just more scientific illiteracy.
Germ Theory of Disease is not science and virology based on this idiotic germ theory is even more idiotic.
There are no highly contagious deadly mutating pathogenic virus organisms chasing after and waiting to jump inside humans from other animals just to hijack cells and grow and reproduce itself in order to kill the human body.
There is no battle with germs or virus organisms 😂😂 if you believe your body is in battle with germs you are likely suffering from germophobia and have a mental disorder.
Understanding that virologists don't actually do real science is not being illiterate. Virologists are performing nonsense, not science.
Virologists have basically hijacked biology and molecular biology techniques and just created a new nonsense pseudoscience that has been used to transfer the cause of disease from environmental toxins mostly man made on to "Natural Invisible Bugs" which we all know are actually just Fakebelieve.
Said someone who does not know what the scientific method is.
Are you claiming that CPE is exclusively caused by unproven bio viruses and nothing else can cause this effect?
He did😂🤭
there has never been a valid controlled experiment to show that, for even 1 alleged "virus".
many "virus isolation" papers have zero controls. none have the necessary controls.
virology isn't science.
the "genomes" are computer generated.
What controls would you require?
The genomes are physically sequenced. They are not computer generated.
Prove existence of nucleotides first.
Then what they cause.
I've discussed that over and over again, and you would know the answer if you had watched the video above. "Virus genomes" are assembled, never found intact and never shown to come from a virus. You are here to waste time. I'm not answering any more questions, I will simply refer you to the 1st page of this document:
https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
Recombinant RSV encoding fluorescent proteins infect mouse lungs and visualized in situ.
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/2/201
HPV does not cause cytotoxicity, HPV and its DNA cause cell transformation. Here is a review of the experimental literature with citations than you and others can read.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042682211005988#bb1425
A2 strain of RSV isolated from a sick patient used to infect mice intranasally after plaque purification under agarose. RSV grew in the lungs of mice and caused histopathology in the lung.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3183639/
RSV. infects only certain cells in the culture. it is not 'toxic' material being delivered. cytopathic effects were not observed. the virus causes formation of syncytia...just like in vivo. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3323997/
And "virus isolation" lol - the biggest, most obvious crock of pseudoscience on the planet (hopefully!!).
the virus is isolated FROM the patient. it does not need to be purified.
obtaining snot or lung fluid isn't isolation. watching a cell line break down isn't isolation.
Correct. None of those are isolation. Proving you have no clue!
Cell breakdown is precisely what's passed off as isolation. CDC, Harcourt et al:
We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics (GIBCO, https://www.thermofisher.com). We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL. We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols (9,10).
When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.
Cytoxicity is an in vitro outcome of a virus isolated from a patient
PROVE IT. (Nobody has yet, according to Stefan Lanka.)
by isolated you mean the clinical sample was mixed with monkey cells, cow serum, toxic drugs and the monkey cells broke down :) because "science".
Monkey cells, human cells and other cells are used to grow the viruses. Calf serum is required for vcekl culture. There are no toxic chemicals in culture media
No, they are used to obtain cytopathic effects so that an imaginary virus can be blamed for them. Like hell there are no toxic chemicals. From the CDC's "isolation" paper by Harcourt et al. (typical):
We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics (GIBCO, https://www.thermofisher.com). We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL. We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols (9,10).
When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.
Of all the dumb takes, yours takes the cake
Prove that anything specific is isolated from a patient and verified for what it does.
The two papers above show this
I do not see anything specific isolated according to those papers.
then you do not understand the papers. Figure 3 of paper 1 shows images of the viruses.
Oh well if you say so, "R". Certainly if that's what's used, it must be valid and legit, right?
Lol face facts. Virologists make shit up. It's purely theoretical, passed off as fact. In other words, it's fraud.
Not because I say so, because I am 100% correct. How much sequencing have you done? do you understand any of it? why not describe the methods used. Sanger, Nanopore, Illumina, and then offer an actual critique of the method instead of hand waving? oh, you can't.
Right, you're right because you're 100% correct. Got it! Thanks for clearing that up!
I can read and know the meaning of the words "guided assembly" and "reference genome". Also "20 millions reads". LOL.
you can read, but do not comprehend the words that are written. and you opine, which is hilarious!
please point to a "SARS-COV-2 genome" that wasn't assembled, and wasn't based on a soup of RNA from mixed sources? make sure you can prove that the RNA is from a replication-competent intracellular obligate parasite that transmits disease between hosts via natural modes of exposure.
Read the papers, dear
How many times have you proven existence of nucleotides?
Do you understand the burden of proof?
Do you understand logic?
Do you understand the scientific method?
oh, you haven't and you don't .
so you can't describe the methods or offer a substantive critique, then? thanks for the admission.
I already told you that the burden of proof is on you.
https://www.logicalfallacies.org/burden-of-proof.html
and that 'proof' is provided by the papers in the blog.
I will help
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22440968/
That's a review paper, not a study validating anything.
yes. it is a review of metagenomics. it answers the questions I posed to you.
please point to a "SARS-COV-2 genome" that wasn't assembled, and wasn't based on a soup of RNA from mixed sources? make sure you can prove that the RNA is from a replication-competent intracellular obligate parasite that transmits disease between hosts via natural modes of exposure. then we can compare it to the metagenomics version of the same "virus genome".
I will help
https://www.grist4themill.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Science-Versus-Scientism.png
'scientism' describes here blog well.
Scientism is your religion, not ours.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29029726/
you must work in the industry lol
you must not work in science at all. lolz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29740407/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23917840/
No one asked you about your belief or opinion.